Search

Answer. Notwithstanding the fact that you do not have anything in your Rules or Rental Agreement prohibiting the use, growing, or selling marijuana does not mean you cannot prohibit the activity. Granted, it would be far better if you had something in the park documents about this topic, but the still require that residents obey state and federal laws, rules, and ordinances.

Here is the short version of my answer:

Under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. _ 801, et seq. ("the Act"), it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, and possess marijuana, also known as "cannabis. Under the Act, possession of marijuana, even when used for medical purposes, is a violation of Federal law.

In Oregon, medical use of cannabis is legal, subject to the limitations set forth in ORS 475.300 to 475.342. Commencing on July 1, 2015, subject to certain limitations and restrictions, the recreational use of marijuana also became legal.

Federal law supersedes state law where there is a direct conflict between these laws. This means that even though Oregon permits medical and recreational use of marijuana, and marijuana products, Federal law controls, and these activities remain illegal. (See, Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 348 Ore. 159, 230 P.3d 518 (2010)).

Accordingly, find the sections in your Rules and Rental Agreements requiring that residents obey the law. Include it in a 30-day notice under ORS 90.630(1)(a), which provides:

'_the landlord may terminate a rental agreement that is a month-to-month or fixed term tenancy for space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home by giving to the tenant not less than 30 days' notice in writing before the date designated in the notice for termination if the tenant: (a)Violates a law or ordinance related to the tenants conduct as a tenant, including but not limited to a material noncompliance with ORS 90.740 (Tenant Obligations);

ORS 90.740(3) (Tenant Obligations) provides:

Behave, and require persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave, in compliance with the rental agreement and with any laws or ordinances that relate to the tenants behavior as a tenant.

You may also cite ORS 90.740(4)(j) in the 30-day notice. It provides that tenants must:

Behave, and require persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave, in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by neighbors.

You should then enact a rule change, and institute a policy that prospectively prohibits the use, cultivation and selling of marijuana and marijuana products.

Answer. If the test of a good or bad form is whether it works, I would say there was nothing wrong with the old form. To my knowledge, we heard of no complaints or claims arising due to problems with the form. However, over time, we hear of more and more issues concerning the use - and abuse - of the service animal designation. In an effort to better assist members, we thought it would be a good idea to review this form, the current rules and regulations, and make changes where appropriate.

As I explained in last week's article, there are several designations that first need to be clarified. A "service animal" under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") is limited solely to dogs that have been individually trained to work or perform tasks for a person with a disability, e.g. guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, or protecting a person who is having a seizure. The ADA does require that landlords make reasonable accommodations for residents with disabilities requesting to have a service animal. Note that the term "disability" under the ADA is very, very, broad.[1]

Although service animals must be on leash or harness, they may also be controlled through voice commands or hand signals. Service animals are not "pets." This means, among other things, that certain park rules for pets, such as requiring residents sign a Pet Agreement, cannot be required if it is a service animal. Dogs whose only purpose is to provide comfort or emotional support to a resident do not qualify under the ADA.

Under the Fair Housing Act, as amended, housing providers, including manufactured housing communities, must make also "reasonable accommodations" for persons with disabilities requesting to have an assistance animal for emotional support, or to provide other forms of help.

Similar to service animals, assistance animals are not regarded as "pets," and residents cannot be required to sign a Pet Agreement for them. However, assistance animals are not limited to dogs that have been specially trained. They can include any animal that assists and performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, including emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person's disability.

Lastly, the label "companion animal" is more of a generic term, and the role it serves is what determines which laws will apply.

What follows is a summary of the main issues addressed in MHCO's new Assistance Animal Agreement. Without implying that the Fair Housing Council of Oregon has "endorsed" or "approved" the form, I did consult with them, and their suggestions were very helpful and insightful in developing what you see today.[2]

1. We note in the form that the landlord reserves the right to refuse to permit an animal becoming an assistance animal if:
   1. It has previously caused verifiable and significant damage or injury to persons or property in the Community;
   2. The landlord's insurance carrier would cancel, substantially increase premiums, or adversely change policy terms because of the presence of a certain breed of dog or a certain animal and it would impose an undue financial and administrative burden for Landlord to secure a substitute carrier which would provide coverage for the Animal.[3]
   3. Note, however, that prior to such refusal, a Landlord should secure written verification substantiating the undue financial and administrative burden.

1. The resident with the assistance animal is responsible to see that it conforms to all of the community's rules and regulations, such as being on leash; responsibility for removal of all feces, droppings, etc.; being left unattended outside the home or space.
   1. Consistent with the conduct of all animals and pets in the Community, the assistance animal may not cause any substantial damage (to persons or property), engage in threating behavior, or cause any disturbance to other residents, their guests, or any other third parties in the community.
   2. We confirm in the form that by signing below, the resident confirms that he/she has reviewed the community rules and regulations as they apply to all other animals and pets in the Community. If the resident believes that one or more of the community rules and regulations should not be applied to their assistance animal, the resident is instructed to immediately notify the landlord.

1. Consistent with the community's policy regarding all animals and pets, the resident shall be liable for any losses, damages, claims, and expenses, including attorney fees, directly or indirectly caused by their assistance animal while in the community.

1. In the event of breach of the assistance animal agreement, the landlord reserves the right to terminate it and demand removal within ten days of written notice. A "breach" is defined in the form to mean the occurrence of any event that would constitute a material violation of the agreement or ORS 90.396, as it pertains to their assistance animal. The resident's failure to remove the animal upon demand entitles Landlord to issue a curable Notice of Termination to Resident under ORS 90.630.

1. Given the fact that one never knows for sure if some court might, in the future strike down a provision in our form, we have inserted what is known as a "savings clause." It reads:

"If any portion of this Agreement shall be deemed to be in violation of Federal and/or State Fair Housing Laws, it shall be deemed null and void, and the balance thereof shall remain in full force and effect."

1. The form advises residents that if they believe they have a disability that requires their use of an assistance animal, they may request that an accommodation be made. This is MHCO's Reasonable Accommodation Request Form No. 15. A landlord is entitled to obtain reasonable information in order to assist in determining whether the requested accommodation is reasonably necessary because of the disability. However, if a person's disability is obvious, or otherwise known to the landlord, and if the need for the requested accommodation is readily apparent or known, then the landlord may not seek any additional information about that disability or the disability-related need for the accommodation.

1. Lastly, the form reminds the parties that the Assistance Animal Agreement must be signed before the animal will be permitted to occupy the Home/Space as an assistance animal.

[1] An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.

See, http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm

[2] This is to say that their suggestions pointed out to me where the mines in the minefield were located.

[3] Note that this "burden" must be both "financial" and "administrative." These are legal terms of art, and before getting into a battle you can't win, I suggest you consult with your attorney to understand the application of these two terms as they relate to your particular situation.

The following questions relate to the traditional landlord-tenant relationship in manufactured home parks; specifically, that the landlord rents the dirt to a tenant who owns their manufactured home. If a landlord has park owned homes, they should have their own insurance. Often times, rental agreements may require the tenant to list the landlord as an “additional insured”. Sometimes the landlords are listed, sometimes they aren’t. Sometimes they are listed as “Co-Insured”. The questions below are primarily coming out of the wildfires where several parks have been decimated. The homes have been destroyed, the tenancies have terminated and in some cases, the tenants have taken their insurance money and run (even when a portion of those insurance dollars were to be for “clean up”), leaving the debris behind for the landlord to deal with.

At the outset, I do not believe that we are dealing with “renter’s liability policies” that are defined in ORS 90.222. Rather, these are homeowner policies that protect the home. Assuming it is the latter, I do not believe ORS chapter 90 prohibits a manufactured home park landlord from requiring a tenant to name a landlord as an “Additional insured” (defined below). If these were “renter’s liability policies” then there are specific prohibitions in ORS 90.222 that prohibit a landlord from requiring a tenant to name a landlord as “Additional Insured”.

Question 1:  Our Lease states that Tenants must return the space in a clean first class condition.  We also are on all of the Tenants' insurance as a “co-insured for purposes of notification.”  Only one insurance company made the check out to the Tenant and us.  Since they are to return the space clean and we are listed as co-insured, should the insurance companies have listed us on the checks?  All the Tenants received monies for Debris Removal, do we have a right to that money? (only 30% gave it to us). And if so, how do we handle getting it?

Answer 1:  Without reviewing the specific insurance policy language at issue, it’s difficult to answer the questions, as insurers may define “co-insured” differently.  That said, generally speaking, a “co-insured” is so designated for the purpose of receiving notice from the insurer in the case of pending cancellation of the insurance, for non-pay or other reasons.  Simply being named a “co-insured” does NOT necessarily provide the full rights bestowed onto the First Named Insured, i.e. the person or entity named on the declarations page of the policy as the “insured.”

The insurance company likely was not under any obligation to list the landlord as an additional payee on any checks it issued to its insured (the tenant) just because the landlord was listed as a co-insured.  While the landlord likely has a right to pursue the money from the tenant (based on a claim of breach of contract – the rental agreement), the landlord almost certainly does not have a viable legal challenge against the insurance company, but again, the policy should be reviewed by an attorney. In most cases, a landlord’s only remedy is to sue the tenant in small claims court for the amount to make the landlord whole – mainly, to leave the space in a first class condition. Since this would not be the collection of rent, pursuing those type of damages would not violate the current restrictions on attempting to collect unpaid rent.

It may be helpful to explain the difference in the terms “First Named Insured,” “Named Insured,” “Co-insured,” and Additional Insured.”  As stated above, the “First Named Insured” is the person or entity named the insured on the declarations page.  There is only one First Named Insured on any insurance policy.  They are bestowed all of the coverages provided under the policy, have the obligation to pay the premiums, and are the ONLY person who can make any changes to the policy.

A ”Named Insured” is a person or entity that is formally added to the policy, and also is bestowed all of the coverages provided under the policy, but they are not responsible for paying any premiums, nor can they make any changes.

A “Co-insured” is almost always defined as a person or entity who is guaranteed to receive notice from the insurer in the case of pending cancellation of the insurance, for non-pay or other reasons.  A co-insured is NOT bestowed any rights to any of the coverages provided under the policy.

An “Additional Insured” (which is what the landlords should probably insist on being named in their tenant’s insurance policies moving forward) is a person or entity that is specifically named in the insurance policy (typically via an endorsement) and is bestowed certain rights under the policy, which are also typically explained in the endorsement.  A common example of an additional insured is in the construction context, where the General Contractor will require that it be named as an additional insured by all of its sub-contractors for any claims involved a specific construction project. Please note that a Landlord would also want to also be listed as “Co-Insured” because they would want to continue to get notice if a policy is not renewed.

Again, assuming these are not “Renter’s liability insurance” policies as found in ORS 90.222, then I do not believe there is a restriction.

Question 2:  Some tenants have told me that they have been told by a State Representative not to sign the right of way and to not give the Landlord's their Debris Removal monies.  The State Representative feel all parks should wait and let FEMA/ODOT and State of Oregon do the cleanup free.  Naturally there have been HUGE problems with this, the time it takes, devastation to roads and concrete, etc.  Many parks like us are trying to do some of the work ourselves and hire some of it too.  The sooner you are open, the more likely people can buy homes and get in.  Anyway, our Tenants are now refusing to give us their Debris Removal money.  The State Rep has recommended the tenants contact Legal Aid.  It's a nightmare. 

Answer 2:  This whole situation is a nightmare. I believe (and John Van Landingham agrees), that upon the destruction of the home, and assuming the tenant has vacated the space, the tenancy ended. Because the tenancy ended, the tenant no longer has possession of the premises and has no authority to give permission to access the premises. What’s the best way to handle the stuff that’s left behind? Assuming that you can affirmatively say that the tenant has no desire to assert any ownership over the debris remaining (i.e. it’s a burned out home and nothing is salvageable), you should send an abandonment notice (please remember that DWT can help with this). Upon the completion of the abandonment, you can dispose of the material as you see fit. As with the first question, if the rental agreement says the tenant is responsible for any cleanup of the space, you could seek compensation from the tenant for the clean-up costs, although actually getting compensation may likely be difficult. Hopefully, the Legislature will address this. The state representative is smart to advise tenants to contact Legal Aid; however, a tenant would be smart to contribute the portion of their insurance that was attributed to the clean-up and obtain a release from their landlord.

Question 3:  Can we use the cleanup money that the few Tenants gave us to clean up their space?

Answer 3:  Yes. Additionally, if tenants give you the money they received from insurance to clean up their space, I would not recommend any further action against the tenant (even if the clean up money is not adequate to clean up the space).  

Question 4: Should we have been listed on the insurance checks?

Answer 4:  Again, without reading the specific language of the policies, we cannot say for certain, but if the landlord was only listed as a “co-insured,” the carrier was likely under no legal obligation to list the landlord as an additional payee on checks it wrote to its insured, the tenant.  Being a co-insured only guarantees that you will be notified if the policy was being cancelled.  If you were listed as “additional insured” as defined above, then you may have a claim against the insurance company.

Question 5: Do landlords have any rights to Debris Removal Insurance money?

Answer 5:  Probably, but it is based on a claim of breach of contract on the part of the tenant, and likely only if the landlords are not otherwise compensated by FEMA or the state for cleanup.  The landlords almost certainly do not have any viable legal claim against the insurance company.

Question 6: If we have a right to the Debris Removal insurance money, how do we handle getting it?

Answer 6:  As stated above, the landlord’s likely only avenue for getting Debris Removal insurance money would be to pursue those monies from the tenant, based on a breach of contract claim, i.e. the rental agreement.

You Make the Call: Did the tenant have a valid claim for refusing to make reasonable accommodations?

Answer: Yes

Ruling: The Pennsylvania federal court denied the landlord’s motion for summary judgment. To qualify for punitive damages, a plaintiff must show that a landlord’s denial of a reasonable accommodation “involves malicious intent or reckless or callous indifference” to the rights of others. The court concluded that the facts the tenant alleged were enough to allow a court to reach that conclusion and gave her the green light to try to prove those claims at trial [United States v. Dorchester Owners Ass’n, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12432].

Takeaway: HUD Guidelines expressly state that you can’t make individuals with disabilities pay extra fees or deposits as a condition for receiving a requested accommodation. That includes charges for an assistance animal necessary to assist a person with a disability. In other words, if it’s reasonable for the applicant or tenant to have the animal, you must allow it without any additional charges. However, what you can do is hold the tenant responsible for any actual damage the animal does to the apartment after the lease ends. You can also hold the tenant accountable if the animal violates building rules, such as by creating a danger or nuisance to others in the building.

Answer: In a guest blog dated March 13, 2015, Jo Becker, Educational/Outreach Specialist for the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (“FHCO”) posted an article for the Willamette Valley MLS titled: “Screening without Social Security Numbers: There are Options!”  The post is set out in full at this link.

What I’ve set forth below is a summary of Ms. Becker’s points, with some editorial comment of my own.  First and foremost, this is not to be used as legal advice, as everyone’s factual situation is different.

Mr. Obama’s controversial (my word, not hers) amnesty program will result in approximately 4 million U.S. residents who are undocumented, coming into the United States.  Although they will have an opportunity to apply for work permits and social security numbers, many may still not have SSNs when seeking housing.

In pointing  out that “…the Fair Housing Act and Oregon law apply to everyone present in the US, regardless of immigration status” Ms. Becker suggests that there are alternatives to screening other than requiring proof of a SSN.  Though she recognizes the “importance of thorough tenant screening,” she states that:

 “…criminal history information can be acquired without an SSN and, of course, current and past landlords can provide rental history and references. Applicants may be able to provide other information such as proof of “x” number of recent months’ paid utility bills, rent, or other regular monthly bills that can show a pattern of timely payment.”

However, regardless of a landlord or manager’s willingness to rent or lease space to all who qualify, the litmus in screening is really what the screening company requires.  Ms. Becker suggests that rather than issuing a “flat no,” landlords and managers say to the applicant “show me what you can.”[1]   She states that:

“…your screening company should be able to give you an informed estimate about how much time and money an evaluation could cost.  Costs may vary so shop your screening company.  Once you have a cost estimate, inform the consumer and, if you wish and do so consistently, you may then pass this cost on to them if they want to continue with the application.”

This suggestion makes the following assumptions: (a) That the applicant actually has some reliable identifying information sufficient to permit the a company to complete the screening process; (b) The company is capable of completing the screening process – even for an increased fee – that does not rely upon a SSN; and (c) That the screening report will provide equally reliable information as if the applicant had tendered a SSN. 

Ms. Becker notes that an alternative to a SSN is an ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number). Here is what the IRS says about ITINs:

• ITINs are for federal tax reporting only, and are not intended to serve any other purpose. IRS issues ITINs to help individuals comply with the U.S. tax laws, and to provide a means to efficiently process and account for tax returns and payments for those not eligible for Social Security Numbers (SSNs). 
• If you do not have a SSN and are not eligible to obtain a SSN, but you have a requirement to furnish a federal tax identification number or file a federal income tax return, you must apply for an ITIN.
• By law, an alien individual cannot have both an ITIN and a SSN.
• For more information, go to link here.

Based upon the above, this leads me to believe – or at least suspect – that the use of an ITIN is really only appropriate if the individual has a federal income tax reporting obligation and is unable to obtain a SSN.  So the question landlords and managers should ask their screening company is whether it can even use the ITIN for purposes of tenant screening.  If the company can do so, and the background check can be accomplished with a comparable level of accuracy as with a SSN, then the following rules should apply:

1. If applicants do not have a SSN, but do have an ITIN, their application should be processed.
2. Make sure that the use of the ITIN in lieu of the SSN is applied evenly and consistently to ALL applicants.

If your screening company does not use the ITIN for tenant screening, are you legally required to find one that does?  I will leave that question to your own attorney.  As for me, if I could pass on the added cost, if any, to the applicant [as Ms. Becker’s article suggests], and the company can provide equally reliable and prompt service, I would personally consider doing so.  

However, Ms. Becker notes in her article that:

“After having consulted with screening companies and the credit bureaus, it does not appear that this will allow a credit report to be pulled in the same way that an SSN does.”  [Underscore mine.]

That statement does not sound like a ringing endorsement by Ms. Backer of her own suggestion that landlords use an ITIN in lieu of the SSN.  In any event, it’s worth a try.

So setting the ITIN issue aside, the FHCO’s position is that:

“…a refusal to review alternative documentation when a SSN is not available will have a negative and disparate impact on individuals whose national origin is not the US, thereby having a disparate impact on that protected class.  Therefore, a policy or practice of not accepting applicants because they do not have a SSN is not appropriate.  That said, we feel that passing on actual additional costs of screening in a situation like this as a legitimate business expense that could be passed on to the applicant. [Underscore mine.]

Here is where Ms. Becker and I part company.  What she is saying is that: (a) Since members ostensibly of a protected class [e.g. Mr. Obama’s four million invitees - who will be given an opportunity to apply for SSNs] will be adversely affected; (b) By insisting exclusively on the SSN as the sole screening tool, it indirectly singles them out, and that’s discriminatory.  That is what she means when she says it creates a “disparate impact.”  So even if a manager or landlord has no intent to discriminate – i.e. they are applying the SSN requirement to ALL applicants, it is the FHCO’s position that such a screening practice is a violation of the Federal and State Fair Housing Laws.

There is one problem with the above quote: Disparate impact theory has never been validated by the U.S. Supreme Court.  There are many legal scholars who maintain that the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) was only intend to be applied to prevent intentional discrimination. 

After several false starts, on January 21 of this year, the case of Texas Dept. of Housing vs. The Inclusive Communities Project, was heard by the Supreme Court. In a Forbes article (“Disparate-Impact Theory Finally Gets Its Test At Supreme Court“) published the following oral argument on the day of the hearing, writer Daniel Fisher, stated that the case:

“…represents a long-awaited test of disparate impact, which critics say allows the federal government — or allied non-profit groups like Inclusive Communities — to sue businesses and housing authorities for committing racial discrimination not because an identified person discriminated but because the racial outcome was skewed one way or another.”

In other words, the issue finally before the Court is whether the FHA can be used to produce racial outcomes when there is no proof of intent to discriminate. [2]   

Conclusion. Although I disagree that landlords and managers are today engaging in illegal discrimination via disparate impact, when they rely exclusively upon SSNs as a screening tool, there are some take-aways from the Becker article I do endorse:

• The FHCO believes that landlords and managers should review “alternative documentation” protocols, rather than just saying “No” whenever an applicant seeks to rent or lease a space without a SSN.  I have no problem with that, and suggest park owners develop such protocols. 
• However, the protocols must produce a reasonably equivalent [i.e. timely and reliable], result as when using a SSN. 
• If there are companies out there that can produce such results without SSNs– even if more costly – they should be seriously vetted. According to Ms. Becker, the cost, as of today, can be passed on to the applicant, should he or she choose to proceed. 
• Note that Ms. Becker is not saying that park owners and managers must use alternative procedures, even if they are bad or unreliable.  She is only saying that, if available, alternatives should be considered. I repeat: Landlords and managers should not initially “screen” [i.e. reject] all tenant applicants based solely on the fact they do not have a SSN.[3] You want to see if there is an alternative screening protocol.
• If (a) valid alternative screening tools exist, and (b) they are equally applied, there should be no legal basis for a claim of discrimination if the tenant applicant does not pass that screening protocol.
• Whether screening out all tenant applicants based upon their not having a SSN would result in a “disparate impact” against members of a protected class and therefor violate the FHA, will have to wait until the U. S. Supreme Court issues its decision.

In the meantime, landlords and managers may want to investigate various screening companies today, to learn whether there are other suitable substitutes to using the SSN as a screening tool.  If there are, and they prove reliable, these alternatives should be included on a written list and provided to tenant applicants preferably upon first face-to-face contact.[4]  Remember to be consistent and apply this approach across the board to ALL tenant applicants. To be absolutely safe, I would even go so far as to say that the list – if one can be developed – should be given to all applicants with the rest of the park’s paperwork. In other words, don’t ask the applicant if they have a SSN, and if they do not, then refuse to give them an application. If there are comparable alternatives that a screening company will accept, then you may use one of them.    

[1] I respectfully submit that “show me what you can” is an insufficient and slightly misleading approach to the issue, as it is too open-ended.  It implies that the applicant need only produce what they can.  I suggest that the proper approach is to ask:  “Show me the best documentation you have of your identity.” If the applicant produces a valid birth certificate or a valid driver’s license, it may suffice for the screening company. If he or she produces a library card as the “best evidence,” there may be some difficulty in its suitability for use by the screening company.

[2] I wrote a blog post explaining disparate impact late last year, before the case was argued. It can be found here.

[3] There is a slightly comparable analogy with medical marijuana. As long as it is a federally “controlled substance” landlords may – in my opinion – have a policy against its on-site use, cultivation, manufacture, or sale; they do not have to allow its on-site use as a “reasonable accommodation.”  But having a no-medical marijuana policy does not mean landlords may “screen” tenant applicants, based upon whether they simply have a medical marijuana card.  

[4] I say “face-to-face contact”, as I don’t recommend engaging in a discussion of screening issues with applicants over the phone. There is too much chance there is a tester on the other end of the line. You want to be consistent in giving all applicants the same paperwork when they arrive.

WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. The vast majority of undocumented alien discrimination cases involve exclusion of people who aren’t legal citizens of the U.S. The question: Is this legal?

Damned If You Do: How the FHA Applies to Undocumented Aliens

Notice that citizenship and immigration status aren’t on the list of FHA “protected classes.” In January 2003, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a memo clarifying that the FHA “does not prohibit discrimination based solely on a person’s citizenship status.” Nor does the law bar discrimination based on “immigration status or resident alien” status, the HUD memo adds. In other words, people who are in this country illegally can’t sue for discrimination under the FHA if that’s the sole reason they experience discrimination.  

However, there’s more to the story. Undocumented aliens and non-U.S. citizens who get excluded may have valid grounds to sue for other forms of discrimination, including religion, race, and especially national origin. Rule: FHA protections extend to every person in the U.S., regardless of their immigration or citizenship status. Stated differently, a person doesn’t have to be a U.S. citizen to sue for discrimination.

Example: A Virginia townhouse community rejected a resident alien couple because they weren’t U.S. citizens. The couple sued, and the federal court ruled that they had a valid FHA claim for national origin discrimination. A citizenship requirement may be part of a wider scheme to exclude persons based on their national origin, the court reasoned [Espinoza v. Hillwood Square Mut. Ass'n, 522 F. Supp. 559 (E.D. Va. 1981)].

Of course, the same principles could apply to other protected classes. Thus, for example, a citizenship requirement may also constitute discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability.

Refusing to rent to non-U.S. citizens may also violate other federal civil rights laws. For example, people who aren’t U.S. citizens may be permanent legal residents with “Green Cards” who enjoy nearly all the same rights as citizens to live and work in the country.

In addition to federal laws, landlords must comply with any stricter requirements under state and local fair housing laws. And immigration status is a protected class in some states and municipalities. For example, California makes it illegal to inquire into an applicant’s immigration status; New York City bans discrimination on the basis of “alienage or citizenship status.”

DEEP DIVE

Anti-Harboring Laws

Federal and some states’ immigration laws make it a crime to “harbor” undocumented aliens. However, most courts have ruled that the laws don’t penalize landlords for simply renting housing to people without regard to their immigration status.

Example: In February 2017, a Texas federal appeals court ruled against two landlords who were willing to rent to persons regardless of immigration status but feared they might be prosecuted for “harboring” illegal aliens under state law. The lower court agreed and issued a temporary ban on Texas’s enforcement of the law. But the appeals court lifted the ban and dismissed the case, saying there’s a distinction between “harboring” and simply renting to an undocumented alien [Cruz v. Abbott, February 2017].

Damned If You Don’t: The Liability Risks of Not Screening Applicants’ Immigration/Citizenship Status

Here’s where things get tricky. While screening on the basis of immigration or citizenship status is problematic for conventional housing, it’s actually required for some forms of federally assisted housing. Thus, for example, landlords participating in the Section 8 program are obligated to ask and confirm that applicants and tenants are permanent U.S. citizens or hold some other lawful immigration status.

There are also states and municipalities where landlords are required to verify applicants’ immigration status or face severe penalties, including stiff fines and loss of their business license to operate.

Bottom Line: It’s crucial to consult an attorney and be aware of the fair housing requirements of your particular jurisdiction in determining your policies and protocols for screening and leasing to immigrants.

7 RULES FOR AVOIDING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IMMIGRANTS

Once you sort out the basic legal landscape, you need to establish clear policies on leasing to undocumented aliens and train your leasing and management staff to implement them consistently. Here are the seven rules to cover in your training.

Rule #1: Ensure Nondiscriminatory Justification for Citizenship Screening

Technically, unless you live in a state or municipality that prohibits it, screening applicants’ citizenship and/or immigration status isn’t illegal; it might even be required. However, there are risks you must avoid if you adopt such a policy.

First, you need a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and documented business justification for making citizenship or immigration status a qualifying criterion. Doing it because the law requires it is one example. But also keep in mind that the vast majority of undocumented aliens in the U.S. belong to a minority racial, religious, and/or nationality group. Accordingly, stereotypes about undocumented aliens being troublemakers or not paying rent open the door to discrimination on the basis of religion, race, and national origin. Thus, for example, refusing to rent to immigrants because they “can’t keep a steady job” may be deemed a pretext for excluding certain nationalities, particularly in properties located near the Mexican border or on the West Coast where there are large numbers of Asian immigrants.

Rule #2: Apply Screening Policy Consistently

Whatever screening approach you adopt, you must apply it consistently. Just having a principled and justified policy requiring rental applicants to verify their U.S. citizenship won’t protect you if you follow it in some cases but not others. The 2003 HUD memo uses the following example to illustrate the fair housing liability risks of an inconsistent citizenship or immigration status screening policy.  

Example: A person from the Middle East applies for an apartment. Because he’s from the Middle East, the landlord requires him to provide additional information and forms of identification and refuses to rent him the apartment. Later, somebody from Europe applies for an apartment at the same complex. Because the person is from Europe, the landlord rents him the apartment without making him complete additional paperwork or verify the information on the application and rents the apartment. This would be disparate treatment on the basis of national origin.  

Implementation Strategy: The only way to ensure the consistency necessary for compliance is to have clearly written policies that explain why you screen for citizenship and/or immigration status along with procedures and protocols for implementing them. What you must guard against, above all, is allowing leasing staff to ask questions or make decisions about whether to screen particular applicants based on their appearance, accent, apparel, etc.

Rule #3: Ask for the Right Kind of Proof

If you do decide to screen for citizenship and/or immigration status, you need specific procedures and protocols to do it properly. You don’t have to take applicants at their word and have the right to request information enabling you to verify their status. Again, consistency is the key. If you ask one applicant for documentation, you must ask all applicants for it. You must also be careful to request the right information. Acceptable proof depends on whether you’re seeking to verify an applicant’s status as a citizen, immigrant, or nonimmigrant:

• Citizenship: Acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship includes a valid current U.S. passport, birth certificate, or certificate of naturalization;
• Legal immigrant: Proof of legal immigrant status—that is, noncitizens who have the right to permanently remain in the U.S., include a Permanent Resident Card (a.k.a., “Green Card”) and an official Social Security number;
• Legal nonimmigrants: Legal nonimmigrants are persons who are allowed to be in the U.S. on a temporary basis for specific reasons. Such applicants should have a non-U.S. passport from their native country along with a Form I-94 (a.k.a., Arrival Departure Record, or Entry Permit listing when they entered the U.S. and how long they have a right to stay). They also need a visa, such as an F-1 visa for students, unless they’re from one of the countries that has signed a visa waiver agreement with the U.S.

Rule #4: Apply Your Normal Screening Standards to Immigrants

There’s no rule requiring landlords to make special concessions for applicants based on their citizenship or immigration status. In other words, you may require verification of identity (such as a driver’s license, passport, or other form of government ID), financial and rental history, and other legitimate qualifications that you use to screen any other applicant.

It’s standard practice to ask applicants for Social Security numbers (SSNs). This is okay, especially since many screening companies require an SSN to perform tenant screening, such as credit and criminal background checks. But don’t automatically reject applicants because they don’t have SSNs. Explanation: Not having an SSN doesn’t necessarily mean the applicant is in the country illegally. Noncitizens need to get SSNs only if they want to work in the U.S. And tenant screening companies may still be able to vet their qualifications even without an SSN using alternative information, such as the applicant’s name, date of birth, and last known address.

Also, note that unauthorized immigrants may obtain drivers’ licenses in at least 16 states and the District of Columbia (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington).

Coach’s Tip: Contact an immigration attorney, the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), or State Department if you’re unclear about documentation requirements or have questions about the documentation of legal immigration that an applicant presents to you.

Rule #5: Don’t Make Ability to Speak English a Rental Criterion

In September 2016, HUD issued guidance confirming what several courts had previously ruled—namely, that excluding applicants or tenants based on their limited English proficiency (LEP) violates the FHA. Explanation: Statistically, most LEP people come from a country other than the U.S. Thus, disqualifying people because they’re LEP has the effect of discriminating on the basis of national origin (and, in some cases, race and/or religion). Discriminatory practices to avoid include:

• Imposing an English-speaking language-related requirement on people of certain races or nationalities;
• Posting ads that contain blanket statements, such as “all tenants must speak English”; or
• Immediately turning away applicants because they’re not fluent in English.

Example: In 2013, HUD ordered a Virginia property management company to pay $82,500 to settle allegations of not letting a Hispanic woman apply for an apartment. According to the complaint, the company refused to give her a rental application because she didn’t speak fluent English even though she brought along a bilingual person to act as translator. HUD investigators also found that the company actually had a written policy requiring all prospects to be able to communicate with management in English without help from others [Travsiňa v. Virginia Realty Company of Tidewater, Inc., FHEO Case Numbers 03-11-0424-8].

Strategic Pointer: It’s imperative to ensure that leasing, management, and other staff remain calm, patient, poised, and professional at all times when dealing with LEP people. Giving in to frustration, even if it’s just a momentary and isolated lapse, may result in comments and actions that serve as Exhibit A in an intentional discrimination case against you.

Example: In 2017, the owner and manager of a California community had to shell out $20,000 to settle claims of national origin discrimination against Latino tenants. The turning point came when a local fair housing group joined the case bringing along evidence showing that the manager repeatedly made statements about not liking having Latino tenants at the community because they didn’t speak English.

For more guidance on this topic, see the Coach’s July 2021 issue, How to Avoid Discriminating Against People with Limited English Proficiency.

Rule #6: Don’t Use Tenant’s Immigration Status as a Bargaining Chip

Citizenship and immigration status liability issues can arise not only during the leasing process but also in the context of dealing with current tenants. One common example is seeking to use that status to extort a rental or other concession from the tenant. In 2012, HUD issued guidance (in the form of FAQs) clarifying that it’s “illegal to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of” FHA rights. “This includes threats to report a person to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)” to get them to move out or accept unfavorable treatment, or in retaliation for reporting housing discrimination to HUD.

Example: A married couple sued their landlord for threatening to report them to federal immigration authorities if they didn’t move out within a matter of days. They also claimed the landlord threatened to report their attorney to the California Bar for illegally advocating on behalf of tenants it perceived to be undocumented. In April 2020, the landlord agreed to pay $250,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to resolve the allegations of national origin discrimination [DFEH settlement announcement, April 22, 2020].

Rule #7: Protect Immigrant Tenants from Harassment

Immigrant tenants may become a target for harassment, intimidation, and abuse by property staff and neighboring tenants. Regrettably, the emergence of immigration as a divisive political issue in recent years has made such behavior a more widespread problem in the context of not only rental housing but many other aspects of social activity. And to the extent it’s typically based on a tenant’s national origin, race, or religion, landlords that engage in or allow others to engage in such harassment are at risk of liability for interfering with tenants’ use and enjoyment of the property they lease.

Strategic Pointer: Preventing harassment is the bare minimum. Achieving true compliance requires a shift in culture, one in which nationality, racial, and religious differences are not only tolerated but appreciated and respected, if not actively embraced. Staff training should strongly emphasize professionalism and the need to respect the diverse ethnic and cultural differences among prospects, applicants, and tenants.

To accomplish this requires cultural sensitivity and awareness of how well intentioned and seemingly innocent acts and statements may be considered offensive to persons of different national, ethnic, or religious backgrounds.

Example: Training of maintenance and other staffers who may enter into a tenant’s apartment should emphasize that removing one’s shoes before entering another person’s home is an essential protocol of respect in some cultures.

Also train staff to avoid asking people about their accents or where they come from. While such questions might be the product of genuine curiosity or desire to engage on a personal level, they may also be construed as a form of illegal inquiry, especially if they’re accompanied by clumsy or insensitive remarks.

Example: In an attempt to make casual conversation, a real estate broker married to a Brazilian woman asked the wife of a married couple where she was from. What the broker didn’t know was that the wife, who was from Venezuela, felt as if she had just been denied a rental at another property because of her national origin. “Here we go again,” she thought when the broker asked the question. She was convinced that they had just lost a rental opportunity because of her national origin and that it was happening again. The couple filed a discrimination complaint. Result: The broker was found liable for discrimination and ordered to pay $76,500. The Massachusetts appeals court upheld the ruling—although it did reduce the damages [Linder v. Boston Fair Housing Commission, February 2014].

Answer: Under ORS 90.675(20), death of a resident living alone triggers the abandonment procotols.

1. First you need to determine if there is a personal representative ("PR") named in a will or appointed by a court to act for the deceased tenant. If not, is there a person designated in writing by the tenant to be contacted in the event of their death. (Of course, the best practice is to have this information, in advance, for all residents living alone.)
2. If you do not have any contact information, you may have to do some research, which means checking the decedent's rental application, or checking with neighbors. My experience is that when an older person passes away, relatives and others come out of the woodwork. Eventually you will need to identify some person who is willing to assume responsibility for the decedent's property.
3. There is such a thing as a Small Estate Probate, and most counties have the available forms. That would be the best approach for the responsible person to go through.
4. However, note that as a landlord/manager, your job is to get the space re-rented, either by a sale of the home to an approved resident, or removal of the home and re-siting of another.
5. The 45-day abandonment letter must be sent by first class mail to the deceased tenant at the premises, and personally delivered or sent by first class mail to the PR or designated person, if actually known to you. (Note: The 45-day letter must refer to the personal representative or designated person, instead of the deceased tenant.)
6. If the PR or designated person, or other person entitled to possession of the property, such as an heir, responds to you by actual notice (E.g. verbal contact, phone call, email, fax, etc.) within the 45-day period set forth in the 45-day letter, and requests to enter into a written Storage Agreement, you must do so.
7. The written Storage Agreement should provide that the home and personal property may not be sold or disposed of for up to 90 days, or until the conclusion of any probate proceedings, whichever is later.
8. The written Storage Agreement entitles the PR or designated person to store the personal property on the space during the term of the agreement, but does not entitle anyone to occupy the home. You should secure it, even if it means changing the current locks. You duty commences the moment you send the 45-day letter.
9. If a written Storage Agreement is signed by yourself and the responsible party, you may not enter into another such agreement with the lienholder until the signed until the agreement with the personal representative or designated person ends.
10. During the term of the Storage Agreement, the PR or designated person has the right to remove or sell the home and personal property (including a sale to a purchaser, or a transfer to an heir who wishes to leave it on the rented space and become a tenant - subject to the approval of background information that you have as a landlord or manager under ORS 90.680).
11. You may condition approval for occupancy of any purchaser or heir upon payment of all unpaid storage charges and maintenance costs.
12. If the PR or designated person violates the signed Storage Agreement, you may terminate it by giving at least 30 days written notice stating facts sufficient to notify him/her of the reason for the termination. Unless the PR or designated person corrects the violation within the 30-day period, the Storage Agreement will be terminated, and you may sell or dispose of the home and property without further notice to them.
13. Upon the failure of a PR or designated person to enter into a written Storage Agreement, or upon termination of the Storage Agreement, you may sell or dispose of the property pursuant to the statute (ORS 90.675) without further notice to them (unless the parties otherwise agree, or the PR or designated has already sold or removed the property).

Notice to Office of Manufactured Dwelling Park Community Relations. In addition to providing the notice as required by ORS 90.842[1] (Notice of sale of manufactured dwelling park), HB 2008 provides that upon sale of a manufactured dwelling park, or upon any sale, transfer, exchange or other conveyance of a manufactured dwelling park described in ORS 90.848 (Exceptions to requirements for sale or transfer of manufactured dwelling park), the owner must give notice of the conveyance to the Office of Manufactured Dwelling Park Community Relations stating:

• The number of vacant spaces and homes in the manufactured dwelling park;
• If applicable, the final sale price of the manufactured dwelling park (emphasis mine);
• The date the conveyance became final; and
• The name, address and telephone number of the new owner.

Comment: There are several transfers under ORS 90.848 to which disclosure of the "final sale price may not be applicable. For example: A gift; a transfer by a corporation to an affiliate; the liquidation of a partnership to its partners or limited liability company to its members; the conveyance of a trust deed to a lender as security for a loan; a conveyance resulting from the foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust; a transfer between joint tenants or tenants in common owning a park.

Manufactured Dwelling Cooperatives. HB 2008 also amends ORS 62.809 (Requirements for membership in cooperative), a statute I have little familiarity with.

A person may become a member of a manufactured dwelling park nonprofit cooperative if the person: (a) Is a natural person; (b) Owns a manufactured dwelling that is, or is to be, located in a manufactured dwelling park of the cooperative and occupied by the person; (c) Pays the membership fee required by the cooperative; and (d) Meets any additional membership qualifications established in the articles of incorporation or bylaws of the cooperative.

Membership in a manufactured dwelling park nonprofit cooperative entitles the member to rent space for a dwelling in the park and to occupy the manufactured dwelling. The total number of memberships available for issuance by the cooperative may not exceed the number of dwelling spaces in the park. Cooperatives issue one membership for each manufactured dwelling that is, or is to be, located in the park of the cooperative and occupied by an owner. A person may not own more than one membership in the same cooperative. Members may sell or redeem their membership in the cooperative, so long as it is for the price the member paid for the membership.

This legislation proves that if title to a manufactured dwelling located in the park of a cooperative is transferred to a lienholder, and a buyer of the dwelling from the lienholder or a person that acquired title from the lienholder does not become a member of the cooperative within 12 months after title is transferred to the lienholder, the owner of the manufactured dwelling must remove it from the park.

Under HB 2008, an owner of a manufactured dwelling is not required to remove the manufactured dwelling described above if the cooperative agrees with the owner in writing to: (a) Waive or extend the deadline by which the buyer or subsequent buyer must remove the manufactured dwelling; or (b) Store the manufactured dwelling on the space for a specified period of time.

The existing park-cooperative law allows for lienholders and a cooperative to enter into storage agreements for up to 12 months, under similar provisions as found in the current park abandonment law. (See, ORS 90.675(20)) HB 2008 now provides that the lienholder and cooperative may agree in writing to extend the term of the agreement beyond 12 months.

Effective Date. The Effective Date of HB 2008 is June 6, 2017. As for the increase in payments for manufactured homes, the new law will apply to park closures for which notice was given on or after the Effective Date. The amendments to the park-cooperative laws will apply to transfers of title and termination of memberships that occur on or after the Effective Date.

[1] Currently, the notice must include the following information: (a) That the owner is considering selling the park; (b) That the tenants, through a tenants committee, have an opportunity to compete to purchase the park; (c) That in order to compete to purchase the park, within 10 days after delivery of the notice, the tenants must form or identify a single tenants committee for the purpose of purchasing the park and notify the owner in writing of: (i) The tenants' interest in competing to purchase the park; and (ii) The name and contact information of the representative of the tenants committee with whom the owner may communicate about the purchase.

Answer. As far as I know, there are no laws that "require" the posting of certain things. I will try to summarize - off the top of my head - two types of information: (1) Things that can be posted without risk of liability; and (2) Things that should not be posted due to potential liability. Remember, these are just my opinions; your own attorney may or may not agree.

(1) Things that can be posted without risk of liability.

• General information about the community, such as maps of the community and space numbers, location of common facilities, etc.
• Safety information, such as permitted speeds, water hazards, emergency phone numbers such as police and fire, etc.
• Publically available information such as location of services, schools, places of worship, libraries, etc.
• If you are a 55+ community, you definitely want that promoted, since one of the requirements to qualify is holding yourself out as a 55+ community, with signs and rules, e.g. a generic definition of what it means and entails. This explanation should be reviewed and approved by your legal counsel.
• If you are a family community, you should say so, including a generic definition of what it means and entails. This explanation should be reviewed and approved by your legal counsel.
• General fair housing-type posters, including, perhaps, pamphlets. It is best if you can secure these through so recognized fair housing organization, such as the Fair Housing Council of Oregon or HUD.

(2) Things that should not be posted due to potential liability.

• Do not post the names of tenants or any other personal non-public information.

• Copies of bad checks - Murphy's Law says the drafter could have some reasonable explanation or bank error, etc.
• Unless it is vetted by your attorney, I don't encourage posting a long list of "Don's" such as unleashed pets, etc. I say this because it can give the wrong picture of management. If you have them covered in the rules, that's enough - no need to shout.
• You'll notice above that I said "General fair housing-type posters," etc. There are several reasons: (a) There are many protected classes, and some municipalities have certain ordinances that add others. You don't want to inadvertently miss one or more. (b) Too much information detracts from the message, which is that you follow the fair housing laws. (c) Since there is always a risk of testers coming to the office, you don't want to open up a discussion about specific protected classes, etc.

On screening criteria I would give a cautious "yellow" light. Remember there always exceptions and if made, it exposes you to complaints from others seeking the same exception. If there are some simple, basic, criteria, e.g. 55+ rules, OK, so long as there is a proviso stating that they are general in nature, and other restrictions or limitations may apply - and direct the reader to the community rules. So not post any limits regarding occupancy, since the number of permitted occupants in a home can be dependent on the size and number of bedrooms, and federal law is different that Oregon law. Do not include income formulas, etc., since source of income, e.g. is protected, and you don't want to post incorrect information.

If you have a community-wide "no marijuana" policy, I'm generally OK with posting it, but make it's vetted by your attorney.